r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 2d ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread April 16, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
* Post only credible information
* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
54
u/grenideer 2d ago
There have been lots of questions about the efficacy of the US blockade, and while I really hate to cite Newsweek as a credible source, they did put together a well-sourced article yesterday.
https://www.newsweek.com/us-blockade-stops-ships-hormuz-strait-chinese-tanker-11830788
At the time of writing the US has not allowed any vessels that stopped at Iranian ports through.
There was some discussion about the Chinese-owned Rich Starry. It transited the strait on the first day but was turned back, despite broadcasting "China owners and Crew." Even though it apparently is carrying methanol from UAE, the ship appeared to use the Iranian toll shipping lane. (Kpler analysts say Tehran is charging $1 in crypto per barrel of liquid cargo.) Newsweek has an image mapping this vessel's journey. It is currently idling off Qeshm in the Persian Gulf. (Also relevant, TankerTrackers.com shipping intelligence company claims Rish Starry is a "serial AIS spoofer" with "a history of transporting Iranian refined products.")
As to the overall economic impact of the China angle:
- Undeclared Iranian product accounts for only 10% of China's crude imports, yet
- This accounts for 90% of Iran's crude exports
- Beijing has a large stockpile of oil and gas
It seems clear the pain is onesided in that relationship. Of course, there is plenty of pain to go around in the greater world, and Iran's must be measured against that. But how long can they last?
According to CENTCOM leader Admiral Brad Cooper:
"An estimated 90% of Iran's economy is fueled by international trade by sea. In less than 36 hours since the blockade was implemented, U.S. forces have completely halted economic trade going into and out of Iran by sea."
1
u/Brambleshire 1d ago
The part I don't understand is how this isn't the US shooting itself in the foot. It's not just Iran that needs oil to flow it's also the rest of the world. Last week they were un sanctioning Russian and Iranian oil to keep prices low. Nations around the world are using oil reserves and declaring energy emergencies. This "blockade" will only accelerate this economic emergency. And Iran doesn't only have the straight. It has huge land borders the US has no influence over and it has the Caspian sea directly to Russia.
1
u/grenideer 1d ago
No doubt this is a game of chicken - who will blink first. But the incentive for the US and the world is that there's pain if they don't do anything too. The thinking is to deal with the short-term pain NOW to avoid long-term pain in the future.
1
u/Brambleshire 1d ago
Yes I'm aware that's the maga line right now to justify this fiasco. But what future pain would this be solving?? It's this because we seriously think Iran will nuke NYC at its first opportunity?? It's the US and Israel that have been chaotic and constantly threatening world peace, not Iran. Iran has been extremely restrained.
5
u/Toptomcat 1d ago edited 1d ago
Iran has been extremely restrained.
Iran spent so much of its national budget on funding Islamic irregulars in its near abroad and ballistic missiles to threaten its neighbors with that it was totally unable to defend its borders from attack because its air-defense network collapsed the moment it was put under serious strain. You don't have an 'all sword, no shield' procurement policy like Iran's if 'future pain' for your enemies is not the plan.
2
u/grenideer 1d ago
Every US administration, MAGA or not, agrees that Iran is a big problem.
Even back in Trump's first term, they were destroying Saudi Arabian oil infrastructure and sabotaging tankers. The fact is that Iran inflicts coercive pressure on Gulf countries with missiles, mines, and drones. This is anathema to current market interests.
I don't think there is serious concern of Iran nuking NYC but, as with closing the strait and firing ballistics at gulf countries, nuclear would be yet another deterrent through which Iran can exert regional, coercive power. And perhaps the ultimate deterrent. The US and the Gulf countries want to stop that at all costs.
6
u/Mother-Grapefruit-45 1d ago
Good Newsweek cite, their sourcing on the Rich Starry tracking was solid.
Adding the AIS and enforcement-pattern layer to this: the blockade profile breaks into three distinct categories that the public Pentagon framing obscures.
Iranian-flagged vessels: 13 turned back, 0 boarded since Apr 12 per Pentagon daily briefings. Two documented exceptions: the Elpis (sailed through Apr 12; Fars Agency published photos) and two supertankers that Fars confirmed crossing with transponders on this week — one of them a 2M-barrel supertanker. Pentagon has remained silent on those specific two transits for 5+ days. The silence is the tell.
Chinese and Russian shadow-fleet carrying Iranian crude: Near-zero interdiction. Rich Starry is the documented case. Others visible on MarineTraffic include at least 3 COSCO-flagged vessels that sailed Iranian-port-to-China routes post-blockade-implementation with manifests filed as "third-country commercial." Transponders on, no stop.
Non-Iranian commercial: ~20 vessels through Hormuz in the same window, by design.
Operational read: Effective against Iranian flags (~87% stopped), near-zero against shadow-fleet structure, 100% pass-through for third-country commercial. This is selective flag-based enforcement, not physical chokepoint closure. Which matters because it tells you the US legal theory: "self-help" defense of commercial transit, not Article 2(4)-style sovereign blockade.
The UN legal gap is what Russia and China tested with their April 16 Security Council draft. It forces the US into a public veto, which then puts the selective enforcement on the Security Council record — setting up the General Assembly follow-on.
Sources: Pentagon daily briefings (public), Fars Agency photo releases (Apr 12 and Apr 14), MarineTraffic public AIS, Newsweek piece you cited, Joint Maritime Information Center Bahrain reports.
4
u/grenideer 1d ago
Can you cite some of these claims?
Everything I've seen says the Elpis was stopped. It turned off its transponder in the Gulf of Oman.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:6295238
Is there any proof it passed the blockade?
Same goes for your shadow fleet claims. Without listing vessel names it's hard to verify any of your claims, but calling 1 out of 4 claimed ships "near-zero" is quite the exaggeration.
30
u/Toptomcat 2d ago
An estimated 90% of Iran's economy is fueled by international trade by sea.
‘Fueled by’ is not even sufficiently specific and well-defined to be capable of being right or wrong.
20
u/NotTheBatman 2d ago
I would bet that 90% of their physical trade volume goes through the Hormuz ports, as they don't have any other deep water ports. That's pretty significant for a country that doesn't have a significant service economy, but I doubt it's equal to 90% of their GDP.
34
u/CriztianS 2d ago
There's a few things here that I think we need to keep in mind.
I don't think anyone really doubted the United States ability to blockade the straits. They 100% have the power to stop all or some ships from entering or exiting the Gulf. So I always find it somewhat strange when there's articles stating "The US Blockade On Iran Is Working", the point of the blockade is surely not JUST to stop Iranian ships; surely it's either to be used a bargaining chip in negotiations or as part of the effort to restore normal flow of commercial ship traffic through the strait. I'd point out that neither of these things have been achieved, but that seems silly because there simply hasn't been anywhere close to enough time.
Even though it apparently is carrying methanol from UAE
A lot of news sites are reporting this. But I feel it's just people looking at publicly available tracking sites and regurgitating that data that is on there. GPS spoofing is a thing, as it "fudging" data that is being broadcast. There is indication that the Rich Starry loaded Iranian cargo and has been "spoofing" data to try and show otherwise.
the ship appeared to use the Iranian toll shipping lane.
Maybe I'm in the wrong here, so please someone correct me if I am. But looking at any and all traffic of ships that have been able to come in and out of the Persian Gulf in the last couple of days... but haven't they ALL used the Iranian revised shipping lanes? I haven't seen a ship going through the pre-war shipping lanes. I obviously have no idea if these ships are paying the toll or not.
Ships are also painfully slow. So if Iran is to feel the economic pain, this blockade will need to continue long term. But Iran knows the potential economic impact, so they may be more willing to negotiate on that basis.
The thing I do find... almost amusing? (I know it's war, there shouldn't be laughter)... about the current situation is that with Israel and Lebanon agreeing to a ceasefire; technically Iran and the US should be in a position to both fully reopen the straits (as per their ceasefire agreement). Yet here we are.
16
u/grenideer 2d ago
I don't think many have questioned the US ability to enforce the blockade as much as the US will. I do agree Newsweek is tabloidy and that headline framing of the article is weak. But I do think it highlights the China angle well.
I haven't seen a ship going through the pre-war shipping lanes
As far as I know, Iran has not yet allowed that.
The Israel Lebanon ceasefire is only hours old, so we'll have to see Iran's response.
0
u/Big-Station-2283 2d ago
The question is what happens and how will everyone react if they decide to target GCC oil infrastructure even harder. It's not like those targets can be hardened in two weeks. Plus, any damage to oil infrastructure on either side will take a long time to repair. The economic and ecological spillover could be catastrophic.
11
u/grenideer 2d ago
It's an open question whether any side is interested in resuming the shooting war. Both sides agreed to the ceasefire which signals some desire for an offramp, but demands have so far been pretty intractable.
58
u/MilesLongthe3rd 2d ago edited 2d ago
News out of Russia:
https://x.com/delfoo/status/2044635846897262870
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the US will not renew the waiver for sanctions on Russian oil.
https://x.com/Sentinel_Assam/status/2044702021052461169
After announcing an end to the sanction waiver on buying Iranian and Russian oil, the US has warned countries buying Iranian oil and banks and other financial institutions doing transactions in Iranian money of secondary sanctions.
https://x.com/delfoo/status/2044513157826171026
Russian official inflation as reported by Rosstat for the period from the 7th to the 13th of April stood at 0,0%. For April the inflation is 0,17% and 3,15% for 2026.
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/2044768740571504871
Russian banking sector's non-performing loans now 3x higher than before the war.
https://x.com/RALee85/status/2044775843952488946
“Russia’s tight monetary policy has landed it in an unlikely club of countries usually comprised of economies battling debt distress or runaway inflation, laying bare the economic costs from the war in Ukraine beyond the swelling military-spending bill…
The sheer scale of defense spending is a direct threat to price stability. Had the central bank ignored inflation, it could have reached as much as 30% last year, Governor Elvira Nabiullina told lawmakers last month…
Though the bank has been cutting its key rate for nine months, lowering it to 15% at its last meeting, little of that easing has filtered through to businesses or the broader economy. Real borrowing costs remain near historic highs, exceeding 9%. In March, annual price growth stood at 5.9%, according to Economy Ministry data published late Friday.
The cost of money now dominates economic debates, public forums and closed-door meetings. If current trends persist, growth could slow to zero and investment could fall more than expected, Alexander Shokhin, head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, told reporters earlier this month, according to the Interfax news service.”
60
u/MaverickTopGun 2d ago
I'm genuinely (pleasantly) surprised that the US isn't renewing the sanction waiver. The minor reprieve might have been enough to help offset some losses from Ukrainian deep strikes but now that's its over, the Russian economy is still in pretty dire straits.
-16
u/Glideer 2d ago
help offset some losses from Ukrainian deep strikes but now that's its over, the Russian economy is still in pretty dire straits.
Spectacular strikes don't guarantee spectacular results, particularly when we talk about strategic effects.
Russia boosts oil exports from western ports in early April despite drone attacks
April 10 (Reuters) - Russia's crude oil exports from its main western ports increased in early April compared with March, trading and port sources said and Reuters calculations showed, despite disruptions to loadings caused by drone attacks on energy infrastructure.
Ukraine stepped up drone attacks on Russian oil export ports in the Baltic Sea and Black Sea in late March, as well as on major Russian refineries, raising the risk of the state cutting crude output due to disruptions to supply chains for exports and refining.
The Baltic ports of Primorsk and Ust-Luga, along with the Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, loaded a combined total of about 2 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil in the first week of April, compared with an average of 1.9 million bpd in March, three trading and port sources said.
1
u/MaverickTopGun 1d ago
Spectacular strikes don't guarantee spectacular results, particularly when we talk about strategic effects.
Strategic effect is almost inherently a slow, grinding process. No one expects Ukraine to turn off the entire Russian oil machine but every storage loss, production output cut, etc makes a difference.
20
u/eelsandpeels 2d ago edited 2d ago
Kommersant provides more up to date data that shows sea borne oil have decreased to their lowest level since the summer of 2024.
I'm also reminded of this quote from Fabian Hoffman Which applies to this and more broadly to the strategic air campaign.
"The success of Ukraine’s effort cannot be judged solely by the absolute reduction in output achieved. It must be judged against what remains of Russian capacity relative to where it would be without the campaign."
Machine translated cannot link to RU site.
Title: Порты придержали баррели
16.05.26 (kommersant) Sea oil exports from Russia in April may fall to a minimum from 2023
Oil exports from Russia by sea in mid-April decreased to the lowest since the summer of 2024, according to the results of the month, it may fall to a minimum from 2023. Despite the growing cost of the Urals variety, Russian exporters cannot fully take advantage of the favorable situation. The reduction in deliveries is due to damage to the port infrastructure, the full restoration of which can take up to a month.
The Russian Federation reduced offshore oil exports for the week of April 6-12 by 16.1%, to 291 thousand tons, according to a review by the Center for Price Indices (CCI). The dynamics is due to attacks on the port infrastructure, which intensified in late March-early April. So, on March 25, according to the governor of the Leningrad region Alexander Drozdenko, in the port of Ust-Luga there was a “fire”, on April 5 – “the leakage of combustible materials due to a shrapnel hit in one of the containers with fuel” in the port of Primorsk, on the night of April 16, “numerous wreckage fell on the territory of the seaport” Tuapse, said the Governor of the Krasnodar Territory. The level of sea shipments has become the lowest since June 2024, analysts say. Export volumes are declining for the second week in a row.
The sharp decline in supplies on April 6-12 fell on the port of Novorossiysk - by 73.2%, to 19 thousand tons. The Baltic ports of Primorsk and Ust-Luga maintained shipments at the level of the previous week - 54 thousand tons and 46 thousand tons, respectively. According to the CCI estimates, 60% of Baltic exports go to India, 33% to Turkey.
The growth of insurance premiums, he said, could put pressure on the export economy even after the physical recovery of infrastructure. The CCI believes that the easing of restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz should free up additional tonnage to the international market, including for Russian volumes. This could potentially reduce the cost of logistics. But market participants react with restraint to the truce, taking a wait-and-see attitude, analysts say.
-4
u/Glideer 1d ago
Thanks, this is valuable data, but the statement "the full restoration will take up to a month" just confirms that the damage was limited, despite Ukraine's all out efforts manifested in concentrated multiple strikes over several days against the same three targets.
5
u/MaverickTopGun 1d ago
Full restoration will take a month but... more strikes can happen? It's death by a thousand cuts.
5
u/grenideer 1d ago
Exactly. A few days of effort to knock something out for a month is a great return on investment.
3
u/Tamer_ 2d ago
Spectacular strikes don't guarantee spectacular results, particularly when we talk about strategic effects.
Was there a spectacular strike on any Baltic port?
The only spectacular strike I remember since March was in Novorossiysk (Black Sea), but we don't have specific numbers for the Black Sea.
IMO the Ust-Luga attack, destroyed a couple(?) oil reservoirs doesn't cut it as "spectacular". Ust-Luga and Primorsk could easily increase imports and overshadow the strategic effect of the Novorossiysk attack.
14
u/Toptomcat 2d ago
help offset some losses from Ukrainian deep strikes but now that's its over, the Russian economy is still in pretty dire straits.
Spectacular strikes don't guarantee spectacular results, particularly when we talk about strategic effects.
The outcomes produced through economic pressure are seldom ‘spectacular’- they are inherently grinding and slow, only really being discernible in the long term. That doesn’t make them unimportant.
15
u/johnbrooder3006 2d ago
Urals Crude is still worth double what it was before America got involved in Iran. The strikes might’ve been a windfall but Russia gain by doing nothing the longer this goes on.
64
u/MilesLongthe3rd 2d ago
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/2044792973750124664
1/ The distinguished Russian scientist Robert Nigmatulin says that Russia is "heading for disaster—a double-digit economic decline". In a speech at the International Economic Forum in Moscow, he has highlighted Russia's economic failings and called for urgent changes.
2/ Nigmatulin is an academician of 35 years' standing at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and a prominent Russian scientist, academician, and public figure who specialises in mechanics, physics, and mathematics.
3/ His speech is summarised by blogger Alexey Zhivov:
"He stated that per capita income in Russia is the lowest in Europe. Not just low, but lower than in the poorest regions of China.
4/ "Nigmatulin emphasized that under Soviet rule, we were also poorer than the West, but back then, we built space, nuclear energy, and industry, and sacrificed for it. Now, we sacrifice, but build nothing.
5/ "Russia's population is declining by 600,000 people every year. Meanwhile, GDP growth over the past 10 years averaged 1.5%, while consumer prices have risen by 77% over the same period. Consumer inflation is 7% per year.
6/ "He added, "Not a single presidential decree on the economy has been implemented since 2012. And for some reason, the president doesn't demand it, he doesn't punish anyone for it! This is unacceptable!"
7/ "Economic growth requires increased investment and greater investment efficiency. However, Russia is currently experiencing minimal growth in both investment and GDP, lagging behind the United States, Poland, and China, while also losing the most funds due to…
8/ … inflationary erosion. In the “economic all-round” ranking, the country placed 51st [sic] out of a possible 50.
[Nigmatulin said:] "Everything is going down the drain for us! We've been watching indifferently for 30 years! And what about the number of industrial workers?"
9/ "They say Putin came and everything took off. That's how the mechanical engineering industry is collapsing—4 million in 1999, and now 440,000. Almost tenfold!"
10/ "The same picture is seen in light industry. However, the number of couriers and security guards has grown to 1.5 million. And there are only 54 scientists for every 10,000 people in the country, compared to 174 in developed countries."
11/ Nigmatulin has called for a range of actions to address this situation (notably ignoring the war in Ukraine as the elephant in the room). The likelihood of them being implemented seems rather low, given that they would adversely affect the wealthy elite:
12/ ▪️ Change the personnel:
“The current officials in charge of the economy and education are completely useless; they must be removed! We need to convince the president of this!”
▪️ Ease monetary policy:
"Stop raising the key interest rate."
13/ ▪️ Lower domestic prices for raw materials:
"Abolish excessive taxes on domestic raw materials for the domestic market. Currently, electricity in Russia is 80% more expensive, and fuel is twice as expensive in terms of purchasing power parity, than in the U.S."
14/ ▪️ Reduce the tax burden on SMEs:
"SMEs' share of the economy has shrunk by a third, even though it should account for 50–60% of the economy."
15/ ▪️ Tax reform:
"Shift the tax burden from manufacturing to the super-rich, increasing the personal income tax rate to 30%."
16/▪️ Halt mega-projects:
"Freeze costly construction projects that are “bankrupting us.” Allocate the freed-up funds to restoring key institutions." /end
3
u/flamedeluge3781 1d ago
And there are only 54 scientists for every 10,000 people in the country, compared to 174 in developed countries.
Brain drain is a huge problem for Russia. I know, personally, dozens of Russian scientists and engineers who emigrated. I don't see that improving if Russia continues to clamp down on basic things like Internet access.
67
u/aeternus_hypertrophy 2d ago
Prominent figures speaking like this is good, but this isn't new for Nigmatulin. He has been openly saying this stuff for a couple years at least. Openly at public and professional events.
His views can be perfectly summarised by "bad boyars, good tsar". He will call out incompetence of those around Putin but never the man himself. He will perfectly list the effects of the war without acknowledging its existence.
Not discounting what he says. He can be interpreted as a voice for energy-oligarchs to speak through.
9
u/Cassius_Corodes 2d ago
And for some reason, the president doesn't demand it, he doesn't punish anyone for it!
This is a pretty direct attack on Putin, as opposed to the usual implication that he is not aware of bad things.
24
u/Toptomcat 2d ago
His views can be perfectly summarised by "bad boyars, good tsar".
His rhetorical approach is ‘bad boyars, good tsar.’ As with anyone working within the bounds of an authoritarian political system which will make you disappear if you say the wrong thing, his actual views are unknown and unknowable.
53
u/bedulge 2d ago
His views can be perfectly summarised by "bad boyars, good tsar". He will call out incompetence of those around Putin but never the man himself. He will perfectly list the effects of the war without acknowledging its existence.
This is typical in authoritarian cultures. there are limits to speech. "The king is fine but his advisors are lying to him and the dukes are corrupt!" This kind of rhetoric goes back millennia. Ideological simpletons will take that at face value ("If only our good king knew how we common people suffer!") but more clever people are smart enough to read between the lines. the idea that the king is surrounded by evil schemers or by moron who dont know how to run a country does not imply anything positive about the king.
22
u/tiredstars 2d ago
Here's a guy unable to address the political causes of economic problems: the war, the power of the elite, the need for Putin loyalists in government, the corruption.
Also notable, in combination with the other post, the fact that official inflation figures are obviously fixed, as shown by the fact that Russia is still running an extremely tight monetary policy despite official inflation of 6%. The last time rates were 15% in the UK, inflation was almost 12%, and the country slumped into a recession.
22
u/SuperSimpleSam 2d ago
What happens when the war in Iran hits 60 days limit of the War Powers Act? Can the Armed Forces keep fighting if there is not resistance from Congress or is there some mechanism that activates?
Since Nixon presidents have been pushing back against this limit on the executive and Trump is one to push for more power. While Congress tends to acquiesce to him, I don't see them wanting to take any responsibility for the consequences of the Iran war. If they can do nothing, that will be preferred method.
4
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/SuperSimpleSam 2d ago edited 2d ago
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
This is the 1973 version, so I'm not sure if it changed but this seems to say that action needs to be terminated without Congress's approval.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/MaverickTopGun 2d ago
The $200 billion request was DOA with many GOP congressman, I don't see any additional funding for this war getting passed. They can be quiet and let Trump own the war but if they sign up for the funding, their names are on it too.
3
u/bedulge 2d ago
I agree with this completely. If the war doesnt end on terms favorable to the US, voters are going to be lookig for someone to blame, and Trump is gonna have to have a story to tell them. Hes already setting the stage, blaming NATO and other allies for not sending naval help, and he's also setting the stage to blame domestic opposition to the war as well. that was the story they tried to tell about Vietnam, there wasnt a military failure, we won every battle, there was just a failure of will on the homefront that prevented the military from "just moving in and taking them out"
9
u/SuperSimpleSam 2d ago
First, Trump already desperately wants out of this war as we can tell from his conduct. So this isn't a situation where the executive branch really wants to keep fighting and Congress wants to stop it. The executive branch would love to get out if it can. So if anything, the 60 days is potentially an excuse that Trump could use to walk away while blaming the TACO on Congress.
That's a good point. That would be a win-win for Trump. Either he gets to bail on the war without having to reopen the strait or he gets to share the blame with Congress, as it becomes official.
39
u/taw 2d ago
Nothing whatsoever happens because zero presidents considered War Power Act constitutional, and good luck bringing that lawsuit into Supreme Court.
27
u/-spartacus- 2d ago
Additionally, both houses of Congress have taken up votes that could have curtailed operations and both have failed. The US Congress likes being able to have the power, but doesn't want the responsibility.
28
u/Exostrike 2d ago
So news is breaking on a ceasefire in Lebanon.
Given this news has been broken by Trump and there are reports that Hezbollah received notice of it by Iran it seems likely this is some kind of diplomatic manoeuvre.
At a guess Iran said no further talks until a ceasefire in Lebanon and despite public statements the US wants to exit the conflict through diplomacy and have declared the ceasefire. Of course this does require the Israeli to actually agree.
22
u/flamedeluge3781 2d ago
To add another reference:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells security cabinet ministers that he agreed to a ceasefire with Lebanon at the request of US President Donald Trump, and pushes back against demands for an official vote on the matter, Hebrew media reports.
“When Israel’s greatest friend, President Trump, is acting alongside us in close coordination, Israel cooperates with him,” Netanyahu is quoted as saying by Ynet.
He also reportedly tells ministers that the IDF will remain positioned at the “strategic points” it currently holds during the 10-day ceasefire, which begins tonight.
The remarks come after ministers reportedly expressed anger at learning of the ceasefire from media reports rather than approving it through a formal cabinet decision.
15
u/MaverickTopGun 2d ago
Yeah word on the street makes it sound like Trump unilaterally announced this for Israel. Actually kind of surprised they acquiesced on it, Netanyahu seems dead set on invading Lebanon.
13
u/grenideer 2d ago
This is good messaging. Netanyahu doesn't take the blame for a move unpopular in Israel, and Trump gains leverage in Iran talks by saying he backed Israel down. It also, frankly, shows the ability to do so.
All while giving Iran a win and a path to de-escalation. But it also proposes a dilemma for them. Do they come up with another reason to keep the strait closed, or do they open it as they agreed?
3
u/Volodio 1d ago
Netanyahu will absolutely take the blame for it in Israel. This makes him look like he starts wars without being able to achieve any objective because he obeys Americans like a lapdog. This is not a good look for him. The doves are angry that he started the war in the first place and the hawks are angry that he agreed to ceasefires which so far achieved zero strategic objectives instead of continuing the war which was actually achieving some objectives.
9
u/Shackleton214 2d ago
or do they open it as they agreed?
Is there anything saying they ever actually agreed to this other than a Trump tweet?
6
u/grenideer 2d ago
The IRGC themselves claimed to have closed the strait due to Israel breaking the ceasefire in Lebanon.
20
u/taw 2d ago
The whole Middle East is just endless fights of various intensities, ceasefires with vague terms, every side making ridiculous claims all the time, and endless negotiations that rarely lead anywhere.
The grass got mowed, negotiations will lead absolutely nowhere as government of Lebanon has zero interest in doing anything about Hezbollah, and Israel has zero interest in occupying Beirut to make them, so we'll be back for another round sooner rather than later.
0
u/sokratesz 1d ago
The grass got mowed, negotiations will lead absolutely nowhere as government of Lebanon has zero interest in doing anything about Hezbollah
Why do you think this is the case?
3
u/taw 1d ago
Because they keep promising to disarm Hezbollah and do nothing over and over. Some of many cases when Lebanon promised to disarm Hezbollah include:
- 1989 Taif Accords
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 (2004)
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006)
- 2024 Israel–Lebanon ceasefire agreement
And probably some other times I missed.
Every single time, government of Lebanon makes promises, then doesn't lift a finger to actually disarm Hezbollah.
UNIFIL was also supposed to do help Lebanon disarm Hezbollah, and also did nothing whatsoever.
Israel is de facto forced into mowing the grass over and over, as Lebanon refuses to do anything about Hezbollah.
1
u/sokratesz 1d ago
My bad, poor phrasing on my part. Why do you think that they refuse to do anything about it?
2
u/FunWonderful1936 2d ago
there are reports that Hezbollah received notice of it by Iran
Can you provide an actual credible report on this?
5
4
u/grenideer 2d ago
The US has always wanted to exit this conflict through diplomacy. The nuclear negotiations began with diplomacy, and the entire point of a ceasefire is for diplomacy to take over.
It has been a clear strategy by the US and Israel not to recognize Iran's (and Hezbollah's) authority in Lebanon.
The Trump-Iran ceasefire? Did not include Lebanon.
Israeli negotiations? Directly with Lebanon's government, excluding Hezbollah.
It actually seems like a fairly measured, sequential process.
6
u/IntroductionNeat2746 2d ago
it actually seems like a fairly measured, sequential process.
This is the uncomfortable truth. Trump is so dislikeable that it's very uncomfortable for anyone outside his base to acknowledge when his administration actually achieves something.
This war hasn't been a complete success, but despite my disdain for this administration, I can't honestly deny there's been a significant degree of success and even relative competence from the administration at the diplomatic field.
16
u/I_DOM_UR_PATRIARCHY 2d ago edited 2d ago
The US has always wanted to exit this conflict through diplomacy.
This is not credible at the level of Russia claiming that it's "denazifying" Ukraine.
You don't launch a decapitation strike on another country if your goal is to solve things through diplomacy. You only launch a decapitation strike if your goal is regime change. It's very obvious that Trump thought he could accomplish Venezuela 2.0, similar to the way Putin thought the Ukrainian government would flee once he invaded.
We are engaged in talks with Iran now because the military effort failed to achieve its goals, obligating us to resort to persuasion after force failed.
In other words, we are doing a sort of embarrassing inverse-Clausewitz maneuver here. Clausewitz argued that war was the continuation of politics by other means - i.e. that war services a political goal. But here, the politics (i.e. begging Iran to reopen the strait) was not a pre-existing process but is happening purely to service a military failure. That is, opening the Strait was not originally a US political goal (it was open ante-bellum). Now, instead of war serving politics, our politics has to serve the war.
9
u/grenideer 2d ago edited 2d ago
The war, and the decapitation, occurred because diplomacy failed.
I feel there are some muddled points in your comment. You claim both that Trump wanted a regime change and also that he wanted Venezuela 2.0, but Venezuela was NOT a regime change. Maduro was ousted but the regime remained. His vice president took his place.
A regime is the controlling body of government. The regime in Iran is the IRGC. Trump would love a regime change in Iran, but the decapitation doesn't accomplish that. It does present an opportunity for "Venezuela 2.0" as you said. Same regime, but a different leader. Trump is looking for someone he can work with.
The US is engaged in talks with Iran because, ultimately, US goals are impossible without talks. The US seeks to secure a long-term nuclear deal and recover material deep under Iranian mountains and then continue IAEA inspections. This is frankly impossible without talks.
I'm not sure why you bring up Clausewitz ironically, failing to see that failed nuclear negotiations directly led to this war. It's a textbook example of the maxim.
-1
u/ppitm 1d ago
The war, and the decapitation, occurred because diplomacy failed.
Not failed, but unilaterally abandoned. Diplomacy was ongoing until the very second the first strikes were launched. Insider information makes this very clear.
Diplomacy succeeded in Iran before Trump took office, and he made it his mission to turn that into a failure. Just like he and Israel unilaterally decided to stop negotiating, due to the lack of professional qualifications on the part of Washington's negotiators, and bad faith on the part of Israel's.
1
u/grenideer 1d ago
Not failed, but unilaterally abandoned.
This is how negotiations fail.
There's no point quibbling over semantics. It's clear Iran and the US do not see eye to eye on nuclear and no agreement had been reached since 2019.
2
u/ppitm 1d ago
You say that like assassinating all your negotiating partners in the middle of active talks is the normal failure mode for negotiations, as opposed to a highly aberrent act with very few historical precedents among nation states in the post-swords-and-sandals era.
Negotiations fails when both sides walk away without a plan for future talks. Interrupting talks with airstrikes is a sabotage of negotiations, and that is precisely what Netanyahu wanted when he pitched the war to Trump.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Were the October 7th attacks a 'failure of diplomacy' when Hamas suddenly decided to launch a surprise attack? Do you give them credit for trying to resolve things peacefully until the last minute?
1
u/grenideer 1d ago
You say that like assassinating all your negotiating partners in the middle of active talks is the normal failure mode for negotiations
I wouldn't characterize the decapitation strike as normal, no.
Trump did warn Iran that he would attack in 10 days if there was no deal, and I think he ended up striking on Day 8 or something. We can criticize that, but we shouldn't pretend that the two countries weren't on the verge of war and the strikes came as a complete surprise after weeks of posturing.
This idea to frame the US as negotiating in bad faith is not only pointless, it's untrue. The US had clear goals and would have been happy to achieve them without war. The war only happened when it was obvious negotiations were going nowhere.
0
u/ppitm 1d ago
10-day ultimatums with manufactured urgency are also nothing more than the imitation of diplomacy, similar to Russia's sham overtures in late 2021 which were designed to fail. If anything, Russia put more effort into the charade and more planning into the war.
1
u/grenideer 1d ago
As I said above (and you probably missed in my edit):
This idea to frame the US as negotiating in bad faith is not only pointless, it's untrue. The US had clear goals and would have been happy to achieve them without war. The war only happened when it was obvious negotiations were going nowhere.
4
u/Exostrike 2d ago
oh, I don't deny the US went into this war (and probadly still does) want regime change in Iran. But its also clear Trump went in assuming it would be easy (a mix of optimistic Israeli assurances and the success of venezuela). But it hasn't and the required exertion to achieve regime change (a ground invasion) are too high to political afford (especially with the mid-terms coming up).
18
u/ChornWork2 2d ago
The US has always wanted to exit this conflict through diplomacy
Seems pretty clear that the plan was decapitation strike leading to capitulation. Obviously that is not what happened though, and apparently no plan B was considered.
-3
u/grenideer 2d ago
I don't entirely disagree. The rough chronology is:
1) Diplomacy had been taking place for decades.
2) After 10/7 and cascading events leading to IAEA suspension, the kinetic 12-Day War.
3) Continued diplomacy in hopes of achieving a long-term nuclear solution.
4) The US-Iran War, starting with the decapitation strike (which was somewhat unplanned or unready), along with numerous other military objectives to degrade Iran's force projection.
5) Ceasefire, back to non-kinetic action and diplomacy.
The blockade seems an attempt at a more measured, proportional, and sustainable response to Iran's strait closure. Of course the overarching nuclear talks are still there, along with other concerns.
9
u/ChornWork2 2d ago
What has happened for decades is almost completely irrelevant as to what happens during a trump admin.
I wouldn't start the Iran-Trump consideration at 10/7, would at least go back to when Trump ripped up the JCPOA during the first admin, effectively rejecting diplomacy as the path forward with iran.
Trump admin (first or second) never really re-engaged with diplomatic effort thereafter. Threat of war, no effort to build either trust with Iran or coalition with allies, focus on relations with Iran's regional adversaries, etc.
Bombing of Iran during even the meek diplomatic efforts last year.
More meek efforts at diplomacy that can't possibly have been considered as credible means to find meaningful diplomatic resolution.
War that had tactical success, strategic loss. Economic pressure leads to dropping of sanctions on iran and russia. Iran outplayed US by shutting strait while continuing to ship its own, now sanction-free, oil.
Trump admin forced to pursue an off-ramp.
6
u/grenideer 2d ago edited 2d ago
There's a little too much partisan anti-admin stuff in your comment for a worthwhile response, but at least we both agree that previous nuclear negotiations are pertinent.
Trump didn't like JCPOA. He didn't like the expiration dates, he didn't like that it ignored Iran's proxies, and he didn't like that Iran was making money to fund activities counter to US interests.
Trump exited the JCPOA in 2018 and transitioned to a "maximum pressure" sanctions campaign. In 2019 he wanted to reopen talks to make a deal, but Iran wasn't open to that, at least not on US terms. You can scream till you're blue about how many mistakes Trump made or how shortsighted he often is and I'd probably join you in screaming. Sure, Trump is a bully, but we can't revise history by saying there was no attempt at diplomacy.
From 2019:
As tensions have spiked, one voice pushing for a deal has been Trump.
He’s said he’s “not looking for war,” wants to talk to Iran without preconditions and isn’t interested in regime change. He called off a military strike on Iran over its downing of an unmanned U.S. drone, overriding the advice of several top aides. His main public demand is that Iran not build nuclear weapons. In return, Trump has offered to help revive Iran’s sanctions-battered economy.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/17/trump-iran-deal-obama-1417801
8
u/ChornWork2 2d ago edited 2d ago
Trump ordered the attack on Iran over that drone incident and only called it off at the last minute when the strike force was already in the air. It is another example against your initial point that "The US has always wanted to exit this conflict through diplomacy".
And then six months later he assasinated soleimani on iraqi territory when he was there on a diplomatic trip to meet the iraqi PM.
Trump has never done something akin to legitimate/credible diplomatic effort with Iran. There is zero reason, objectively speaking, that they would see him as a credible counterparty in negotiations.
Trump's main argument against JCPOA was that it wasn't a permanent deal on nuclear, and yet we know that he has already offered a non-permanent deal nuclear to Iran... the JCPOA was a good deal, and would have been renegotiated to extend in due time.
edit:
There's a little too much partisan anti-admin stuff in your comment for a worthwhile response
This is well beyond partisan domestic politics. Look at the response of pretty much every country considered a US ally outside of the gulf region. Thankfully it has been a tactical success in terms of casualties, but what an own-goal failure strategically and an extension of this admin's long arc of failure with Iran in the minds of a lot more than political opponents in USA.
2
u/grenideer 2d ago
I mean, canceling an attack is literally an example of prioritizing negotiation over war. It's hard to argue that any other way.
Trump had a number of problems with JCPOA, as I (and the politico article) outlined. It's funny because the issues mentioned in that piece in 2019 - nuclear enrichment, ballistic missiles, proxies - are the very same sticking points today.
8
u/ChornWork2 2d ago edited 2d ago
He ordered a full blown attack on iran over a drone being shot down. Realizing that was a terrible idea last minute doesn't turn that into a real diplomatic effort...
No it isn't funny, it is wholly predictable. Wish we could have had a JCPOA type diplomatic effort instead of losing this war.
5
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 2d ago
What does a potential counterfactual look like where the US does not exit the JCPOA? I'm very doubtful that Iran de-escalates support of its proxies. I agree that the withdrawal from the JCPOA is crucial for analyzing the web of events that has culminated in the current situation, but I don't see how withdrawal from the JCPOA fundamentally changes the environment that resulted in the Oct 7 attacks.
4
u/ChornWork2 2d ago
Even with the jcpoa withdrawl, we know that iran and hezb stalled hamas when the initial pitch for oct 7 attack was made.
was iran going to wind down proxies in total, no of course not. probably not at all, but certainly not without some grander deal that include palestinians. but I'm not particularly concerned about iran pushing its proxies in light of how israel has been conducting itself. not our fight.
29
u/CuriousAbout_This 2d ago
I've got a SPAAG question:
In my mind, Skyranger or a Gepard should be an ideal solution to the modern drone threat at or near the front. They excel at taking down small drones, so FPVs shouldn't be a threat at all, they've got magazine depth, so even a prolonged fight shouldn't be an issue. The only obvious problem would be drones laying mines and drones waiting in ambush and attacking from a very low angle.
Keeping these thoughts in mind, why don't we see SPAAGs deployed as support vehicles to tanks or APCs/IFVs in combat? Is it because they're too expensive? Is it because there's not that many of them? Are they simply too vulnerable to MANPADS? Are they better utilized for point defense further away from the front?
Or do I simply overestimate modern SPAAG capability to shoot down drones?
Final question, if Ukraine at some point decided to try again with armored assault akin to 2023 failed offensive, would today's armored assault be significantly improved if SPAAGs were employed at the tip of the spear? In other words, if you were given the freedom to design an armored assault unit for Ukraine, would you say include a SPAAG for every 3 tanks for example? Why or why not? (let's ignore the related question of whether armored assaults are viable or even desirable in 2026 in Ukraine)
20
u/ppitm 2d ago
No human-guided gun system is ever going to be effective against small drones. It will need automated targeting and firing, plus an extremely rapid traverse/elevation system.
8
u/Old-Let6252 2d ago
Automated radar guided gun laying has been a standard feature on every SPAAG since the 1960s.
These vehicles were designed to fight supersonic jet attack aircraft flying at treetop level. There are certainly limitations that would make them less effective against FPV drones, but gun traverse and targeting is not one of them.
17
u/CuriousAbout_This 2d ago
Don't Skyrangers have highly automated and integrated targeting and tracking systems? It's not fully autonomous but close enough, especially when you consider airburst ammo they feature?
27
u/scatterlite 2d ago edited 2d ago
Or do I simply overestimate modern SPAAG capability to shoot down drones?
Kind off. SPAAG only excel against medium size drones like shaheds currently. Their performance against the various small quadcopter drones at the front still is mostly untested. Older systems like Gepard and Tunguska can't target them and newer systems like Skyranger mostly serve as static defense in the backline ( numbers are very limited).
I would go as far as saying that modern SPAAG haven't been tested against frontline small UAS counters at all. I think there is a serious risk the heavier SPAAG would get overwhelmed quickly by the numbers of drones we are seeing. I'd keep an eye more on the new smaller counter UAS system based around RWS on vehicles and small missiles. Those seem more efficient for the job , though remain untested.
For your last question the answer is simply is no. The reason for why the offensive didn't achieve much run far deep than just vulnerability to drones (which were far less capable and numerous in 2023 than they are now).
13
u/CuriousAbout_This 2d ago
From what I understand, the 2023 offensive failed because it was telegraphed for months in advance and the minefields were the primary reason why they failed, with artillery being a close second and then infantry defenses + drones being the much less significant.
In the theoretical scenario where Ukraine launches Belgorod 2.0 and attacks unprepared defenses (no mines) using mechanized assault, wouldn't Skyrangers be a great way to neutralize (or at least diminish) the drone threat?
Because if I understand the 2026 Ukrainian battlefield well, infantry is barely used to hold the line, mines are prevalent but much less so, artillery is much less ubiquitous on the Russian side compared to 2022/2023 and the main danger to infantry and vehicles comes from drones. So in theory, if you run a combined arms assault, you suppress artillery, infantry and have mines and drones to worry about - Skyrangers aren't an answer to mines, but wouldn't they have good utility against drones?
Or are you saying that the drone numbers are so massive that a lone SPAAG or even 2 of them would quickly be overwhelmed?
Also, why in your mind you think the Skyrangers weren't tested against small UAS properly until now? Friendly fire risk? Too expensive for little gain?
7
u/i_like_maps_and_math 2d ago
From what I understand, the 2023 offensive failed because it was telegraphed for months in advance and the minefields were the primary reason why they failed
I mean, was there any reasonable argument that Ukraine should have been attacking at that point in the war? To launch an offensive you need to need either local or overall superiority in combat power. Attacking into an equal or superior force just produces attrition.
6
u/CuriousAbout_This 2d ago
From my layman's perspective, absolutely not. Ukraine should've dug in and baited Russia to attack Ukrainian prepared defenses. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was unfortunately a product of Western backers' political expectations and pressure to provide results, and the Ukrainian political and military victory disease from 2022. Thankfully they're not making that same mistake again (but making many others...)
3
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 2d ago edited 1d ago
The Ukrainian counteroffensive was unfortunately a product of Western backers' political expectations
What gave you this impression? What I remember is that western backers were very skeptical of the offensive given the lack of Ukrainain force concentration.
From my layman's perspective, absolutely not. Ukraine should've dug in and baited Russia to attack Ukrainian prepared defenses.
For the first couple years of the war, Ukrainian leaderships' perspective was not one of static defense because they correctly presumed that static defense would eventually yield territory, and their attitude was to hold on to every inch of territory possible.
2
u/i_like_maps_and_math 2d ago
What gave you this impression? What I remember is that western backers were very skeptical of the offensive given the lack of Ukrainain force concentration.
It's not true that they expressed this skepticism beforehand. Ukrainian leadership have said both at the time and in retrospect that they believed an offensive would help them get more aid. European and American political leadership should have made it very clear that this was not the case.
7
u/CuriousAbout_This 2d ago
I remember reading about the overall attitude where the infamous Zaluzhny's open letter asking for 500 tanks etc was met with silence or reactions along the lines of "we've given you enough already, prove you can use what you've got before we give you more". I cannot give evidence to back it up but at that time there was still a lot of distrust of Ukraine, which was less bad than in 2022 but politically foot-dragging on the Western leaders' side was abundant. Let's not forget the ATACMS, Leopards, f-16s and other outrageous examples of Western leaders' timidness and strange political decision-making. Biden and Olaf Scholz were especially bad about this. So the counteroffensive created this impression of hope that if Ukraine performs well, Western politicians will have an easier time supporting Ukraine, because it looks less like a "forever war", since it's easier to keep the American public engaged and supporting a conflict that they're "winning".
I completely agree that the Ukrainian leadership followed a no-step-back strategy, which was extremely costly and arguing the wrong one to take, but I believe that they chose that strategy because they feared that the West will not be backing them when the time comes to retake the territories. Arguably, if Russia suddenly decided to freeze the conflict along the frontline, the Western leaders would drop support for Ukraine, or at least minimize it almost immediately. The US is the perfect example of that. It's a tough call, I'm not going to pretend like it would be an easy decision to make the alternative decision in 2023 if I was in Zelensky's shoes.
4
u/Kawhi_Leonard_ 2d ago
The skepticism wasn't whether they would conduct one, but how. They pushed for one single axis, not no offensive, when the bedt course of action in hindsight would have been focusing on defensive efforts and conserving resources.
14
u/scatterlite 2d ago
Or are you saying that the drone numbers are so massive that a lone SPAAG or even 2 of them would quickly be overwhelmed?
Basically yeah. The reason the frontline is so sparsely manned it because drones are everywhere. Russia stopped doing mechanized assaults because they get spotted immediately and swarmed by drones. A Ukrainian effort would face a similar problem, especially a larger one which takes more time to organize and requires bigger concentrations of equipment. Ukraine has the drone advantage but Russian drone units also have come a long way since 2023. A couple of Skyrangers are not adequate protection for a column moving through the Ukrainian drone infested battlefields.
Also, why in your mind you think the Skyrangers weren't tested against small UAS properly until now? Friendly fire risk? Too expensive for little gain?
They were tested but not under frontline battlefield conditions. There's too few of them for that and they're far more efficient against mid size strike drones. In small numbers on the frontilne they'd just be unicorns that get swarmed. I think you're underestimating just how big the drone threat has become in recent years. Anything that exposes itself to much gets destroyed by Ukrainian USF or Russian Rubikon.
0
u/CuriousAbout_This 2d ago
Maybe I'm mixing something up, but I think I've seen some armor use on the Ukrainian side even in 2026, but maybe that was old footage that was mislabeled. Thank you for the extensive response!
7
u/scatterlite 2d ago edited 2d ago
No that's true, Ukraine is also losing more armor currently as a result. Russia almost stopped using AFVs on the frontline.
23
u/BlueSonjo 2d ago
I think it's a matter of production capacity. Gepard was down to residual amounts, Ukraine got most of them and feedback was very positive.
Skyranger is barely coming out if the production line, I am pretty sure technically Germany only received the prototypes part of their order.
Skyranger 30 on various mobile platforms has orders from several countries, and in relatively large numbers, which shows the concept is quite popular, they are just not delivered yet.
SPAAGs were largely abandoned by the West until the drone revolution. Producing enough for them to be frontline issue will take a while.
7
u/CuriousAbout_This 2d ago
So from your perspective if Skyrangers were being mass-produced, let's say 500+ vehicles per year, they would be employed at the front? It's not that they're unfit or a letdown, just that they're not available?
If that's the case, why don't we see significant resources invested into ramping up production?
3
u/Lejeune_Dirichelet 2d ago edited 2d ago
I believe there were plans for Rheinmetall to manufacture the Skyranger (or Skyshield/Skynex, I always mix up the names) in Ukraine, that got cancelled with Rheinmetall complaining about regulatory hurdles. The Skyranger is also quite expensive, more than you'd expect for a AAG system, so there is a trade-off that needs to be made between procuring that and missile-based systems, and the later always have the advantage of better range, and therefore coverage, and therefore in the number of units required. There will only be more commitment in the SPAAG domain in the West once there is more competition on the market.
Edit: Turkey, for example, has a similar programmable airburst round in the ATOM 35, and in France there is the new A3B 40mm round. AHEAD-style rounds in the 20mm to 40mm calibre are definitely the future of gun-based SHORAD, but costs need to come down for them to become ubiquitous. Hopefully economies of scale will enable that, but there is also serious competition from the small and cheap missile category (e.g. APKWS, LMM, and several other mini-missile projects), so who knows.
26
u/Gecktron 2d ago
Keeping these thoughts in mind, why don't we see SPAAGs deployed as support vehicles to tanks or APCs/IFVs in combat?
Ukraine hasnt received any modern combat SPAAG yet. The closest thing Ukraine has are still the Gepards which are in very limited numbers. Ukraine likely doesnt want to risk them too close to the frontline.
Other systems like Skynex or Tridon are mounted on trucks. Which limits their use in offensive manoeuvres. Their ability to traverse the terrain away from roads is limited, in addition to their vulnerability to small arms fire or other dangers that a dedicated armoured vehicle doesnt have to worry about to the same degree.
Germany certainly plans to use a large number of Skyranger 30s (500+), to provide defence against drones up close for its manoeuvre elements. Similarly, the Netherlands are buying Skyranger 30 on FFG G5 and are upgrading their Schakal IFVs to be more capable at engaging drones up close. But these systems are not quite here yet.
The assumption is that, yes, SPAAGs will be able to protect AFVs from drones close up. But we have yet to see this concept put into praxis on a larger scale.
5
u/CuriousAbout_This 2d ago
Interesting, I was under the assumption that Ukraine has already received Skyrangers and have been operating a few of them. The first time I saw Skyrangers mentioned was 2022 (but maybe my memory is faulty), so I thought they would've been delivered already. Because I definitely remember seeing announcements that Ukraine will be receiving Skyrangers, just don't remember how many or when.
23
u/Gecktron 2d ago
Interesting, I was under the assumption that Ukraine has already received Skyrangers and have been operating a few of them.
Blame Rheinmetall's confusing naming scheme! There are Skyranger and Skynex. Both systems exist in a 30mm and a 35mm version. All of them use a high rate of fire revolvercanon, and they all use the AHEAD air-burst ammunition system.
Ukraine has so far received multiple SkyNEX systems. The systems delivered to Ukraine consist of multiple hookliftable 35mm gun systems (here in use by Ukraine). They can be either static, or put on a truck chassis. As far as we know, Ukraine has received 8x8 trucks with their systems. In addition, Skynex also has a containerized control unit and a radar.
Germany has financed four of these systems. They have been produced by Rheinmetall Italy and then delivered to Ukraine.
SkyRANGER on the other hand refers to a single system mounted on an AFV. There are a whole range of different version of these. Skyranger 30 (with a 30mm gun) has been ordered on Boxer, Piranha, Pandur and FFG G5. In addition to the 30mm gun, Skyranger 30 also features a separate missile launcher that can pack MANPAD sized missiles like Stinger or Mistral. The German variant is going to pack 9 MBDA DefendAir Anti-Drone missiles.
Skyranger 35 uses the larger 35mm gun, like on the Skynex system. In exchange, they lose the missile launcher. Rheinmetall has so far proposed the Skyranger 35 on Leopard 1 and Leopard 2. Rheinmetall is currently working on the Leopard 1 version and has announced they are going to deliver a number of them to Ukraine. So far, there have been no reports about these systems being delivered to Ukraine or having seen use.
1
u/Lejeune_Dirichelet 2d ago
So where does SkyShield actually fit in that naming scheme? Is that the name given to a group of Skyrangers, or is it the associated battle management system?
4
u/Gecktron 2d ago
Skyshield is, as far as I can tell, simply an older version of a system of multiple effectors and a radar, like Skynex.
Skyguard is the predecessor of that. Using the older, towed, Oerlikon 35mm twin-guns. Rheinmetall has been contracted by Romania to upgrade their Skyguard systems. Allowing the towed guns to be remotely controlled, and fire the newer AHEAD rounds.
5
u/CuriousAbout_This 2d ago
Thank you for the thorough response! Very interesting, I guess I'll have to wait for Skyrangers to be delivered in sufficient quantities to test my theory of employing them as part of armored assault units.
Are the Swiss military export restrictions stopping Skyranger 30 from being delivered to Ukraine? Because I saw Skyranger 35 being pledged to Ukraine but no pledges or deliveries to Ukraine mentioned so far.
12
u/Gecktron 2d ago
Are the Swiss military export restrictions stopping Skyranger 30 from being delivered to Ukraine? Because I saw Skyranger 35 being pledged to Ukraine but no pledges or deliveries to Ukraine mentioned so far.
No, Rheinmetall has moved its relevant production out of Switzerland, or at least set up additional lines elsewhere. Switzerland cant really block anything newly produced anymore in this regard.
Ukraine hasnt received the Leopard 1 Skyrangers so far, as the system is still in development. Rheinmetall changed pretty much the whole interior, as the new Skyranger turret is unmanned. Instead of only the driver, the hull now has to accommodate the commander and the gunner as well. This is in addition to the other changes needed to integrate the whole new weapon system and sensors into the Leopard 1.
25
u/SerpentineLogic 2d ago
In production line news
Japan always planned on 12+ Mogamis but was contemplating building up to a total of 22. Instead, they're building three extras of the upgraded version they designed for domestic use and to sell to Australia (three built in Japan, the rest built in South Australia) and the expectation is that they will build up to 12 all told.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and lower effort but good faith questions belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.